[mythtv-users] Read the question before trying to answer it

[Rod]

Yeechang Lee wrote:

>Debabrata Banerjee <davatar at comcast.net> says:
>  
>
>>I already have several other raid arrays in my myth box for other
>>purposes, I am quite sure this is not what I want.
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>
>>If I suppose nothing to meet these requirements exist, this could be
>>easily implemented in mythtv, actually it 'sort of' does it right
>>now if you use multiple backends with storage. It just can't manage
>>the storage and can't have more than one per server.
>>    
>>
>
>Correct; 0.20 is set to add multiple storage locations per backend and
>will thus essentialy do what you are looking to achieve (wilingness to
>accept the possibility of losing part, but not necessarily all,
>recordings if a disk goes down).
>
>I'm even more cavaliar about my recordings than Debabrata is; my 2TB
>NAS uses RAID 1, not RAID 5, so if any of the four disks goes it takes
>the whole array down with it. I've thought about using RAID 5 on it as
>my 2.8TB array does but I can use the extra capacity and hey, we're
>only talking about TV. It'd get filled up again within three months,
>anyway; that's how long it took to get filled up the first time
>around, and ever since it's been a never-ending battle to free up
>enough space for the next day's worth of recordings.
>
>  
>
>>RAID is slow, complicated, wasteful, and overkill for myth. A single
>>disk can handle many streams of video. A fault-tolerant filesystem
>>and JBOD is what I want.
>>
>>*sigh*
>>    
>>
>
>Since Debabrata is apparently polite enough to leave his frustration
>to a single sigh, let me take up the fallen banner of reading
>comprehension. In this case we had not one, not two, but *three*
>geniuses who simply didn't bother to, you know, actually *read the
>message*. The roll of honor includes:
>
>* Tom Lichti, who blithely suggests Debabrata try RAID 5 without
>  noticing that Debabrata explictly says he didn't want to use RAID.
>* Rod, who gives the "Did you Google" answer (a quite appropriate one
>  in many circumstances, I agree) and then suggests a filesystem that
>  a) doesn't do what Debabrata wants to do at all and
>  b) in any case has a complexity that is completely inappropriate to
>  the simple-is-better thrust of Debabrata's message.
>* Chris Henderson, who like Tom also suggests RAID 5 without
>  comprehending what Debabrata is asking (and not asking)
>  for--completely with the requisite condescending "Um"--and then
>  "helpfully" gives a long lecture on what RAID is.
>
>Bravo, gentlemen. Bravo.
>
>  
>
    Hey lets get our torches out and lets start a FLAME WAR

    I accepted the response of the original poster of not meeting the 
requirements, but so many don't do a search first they post, then you 
get " Oh I didn't RTFM

    Ok, i wasn't helpful, but I would have prefered a "PERSONAL" attack 
from the originator, not some daft bugger who thinks its their right to 
FLAME others.